The false doctrine of "sinful nature"

John t

Active member
you shouldn't be making claims about texts and a language you don't understand...

TOUCHE!

Dendrology (or xylology )
double touche.

First time I saw you since the big crash, Jonathan. What I appreciate about you is that you can put the anti-intellectual crowd in their place without riding a high horse

I pointed the 'and' out to you in my first post... see the blue underscored vav. If you don't recognize that as 'and' then all you've demonstrated is you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew. Further conversation is pointless...

Those sorts of people are using the same pattern of non-logic as does the King James Only crowd. They call you names and say that you are "carnal" because you are using the knowledge you have from your PhD in Biblical Hebrew. They are attempting to create their own version of Orwell's 1984 and making knowledge "homogenized"
 

John t

Active member
I re-checked .....

Not seeing the AND between good evil.

sr

Your "opponent" is a fountain of knowledge of things beyond your understanding. I seriously doubt that you ever studied any other language than English, so your refusal to surrender to superior knowledge is actually a display of profound foolishness.

While my days of studying Hebrew are long passed, I did check, and he is correct.

Wise up and learn! A little bit of learning will not hurt you.
 

GeneZ

Active member
IMO ... it is more like the tree of good evil.

NOT two fruits.


"good and evil" .. is not in the text.

Trees typically do NOT produce two fruits.

sr
If I am reading that right? Possible application?

Satan tells us that evil is good. We walk into his shop looking to see what he has to offer...The salesman tells us.. "This is a good evil!"

Satan's kingdom thinks in terms that are always being evil. So, he tempts with what he calls "good", but its that which is evil. After all.. He considers evil to be good. And, good evil.


Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter." Isa 5:20
 

John t

Active member
However, you never said the AND was between good and evil.



Now then, we have been round and round on this.

And you STILL have not shown the AND between good evil; the name of the tree was good evil.

It's the same thing ......

Then the good evil shows ...... good and evil for their prioria. (sic)

IT IS STILL THE TREE OF GOOD EVIL.

With that post, you are "doubling down" on the side of ignorance.

Do you not realize how you appear when you are using an interlinear to argue what the Hebrew actually says?

Pardon the bluntness, but how can you, who does not even know the Hebrew alphabet, nor the function and placement of the vav in that phrase dare to argue with a person pursuing a post graduate degree so that he can teach Hebrew in a seminary or graduate school

Please explain what you mean in this: " good and evil for their prioria." What is the definition that you apply to "prioria"?
 

John t

Active member
But not on this earth, though the names are the same.

Utter balderdash!

You have absolutely no evidence for that claim. Your statement eviscerates the Bible because it makes appear that there are two different and unrelated planets called Earth.

It also makes the entire Pentateuch (and the rest of Scripture) a fiction since you are essentially calling Moses a liar. You really want to go that far?
 

GeneZ

Active member
With that post, you are "doubling down" on the side of ignorance.

Do you not realize how you appear when you are using an interlinear to argue what the Hebrew actually says?

Pardon the bluntness, but how can you, who does not even know the Hebrew alphabet, nor the function and placement of the vav in that phrase dare to argue with a person pursuing a post graduate degree so that he can teach Hebrew in a seminary or graduate school

Please explain what you mean in this: " good and evil for their prioria." What is the definition that you apply to "prioria"?
Good to know... (a little bit of sideline, please)

I am no Hebrew scholar, but my pastor was. He explained to us that the breath of life was in the plural. "Breath of lives."

Are you in agreement?
 
Last edited:

Stephen

Active member
This would take a long time to cover to give it justice.

So... only one thing at a time.

In dying you shall die.

Not -

You shall die. But, in dying (somehow) you shall die (somehow).

And, if you like resting in sanity? Spiritual death leads to the physical death.

Spiritual death for Adam led to the denial of the Tree of Life. For God did not want Adam living forever with a sin nature.

While this is an interesting thought, it comes without any scriptural backing. The object in the verse is Adam, not the various bits of Adam. As I read the passage, it says we shall slowly die, and than be dead. The consequence isn't that we shall live long healthy lives and then die at full vitality and then we suddenly die. The consequence is we die slowly with vitality slipping away until we are dead.


You are your soul. The human spirit is a Divine "app" that God installs at regeneration to make us receptive to the spiritual realities that God wants us to know. Not to be confused with the additional gift of the Holy Spirit that no OT saint had indwell him. Its what makes the Lord's Bride unique!

This appears to contradict your explanation of the Garden. How could Adam's "spirit" be dead, but then the "spirit" be an app that is installed.

While I do like certain parts of the allegory of the "spirit" being a divine app being installed, that being rewrite of our code to not be the person our flesh desires, but rather be the person God desires. This allegory doesn't jive with your explanation of Adam's spirit dying leading to physical dying.


Soul and spirit are both invisible and immaterial.

Angels are spirits. Men are souls.

And, the Word of God differentiates between soul and human spirit.

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely.
And may your spirit, soul, and body be kept sound and blameless
for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:23

Yes, I am aware of this. But this seems to contradict what you are explaining above. To me, this is a continuation of Paul's teaching in Romans. We are to act spiritually. And thus, we will be found blameless.

This doesn't teach that these long dead people suffered a spiritual death leading to their mortal death. These people likely lived in Christ until the day they died. I hope to meet them in the kingdom of God.


Note: The Holy Spirit needs no sanctification, nor can ever be found with blame for anything. He does the sanctifying. That speaks of our human spirit. The same human spirit that Jesus said the Holy Spirit begets when we are born again.

I have no idea what this is talking about.





But we have drifted away from the "sin nature" topic. What nature did Adam have when he sinned?
 

Slyzr

Member
With that post, you are "doubling down" on the side of ignorance.

Do you not realize how you appear when you are using an interlinear to argue what the Hebrew actually says?

Pardon the bluntness, but how can you, who does not even know the Hebrew alphabet, nor the function and placement of the vav in that phrase dare to argue with a person pursuing a post graduate degree so that he can teach Hebrew in a seminary or graduate school

Please explain what you mean in this: " good and evil for their prioria." What is the definition that you apply to "prioria"?


Look Mate ......

There are other scriptures in gen that directly support the notion of the tree being good evil or good-evil.



As well as this from the prophet Isiah.
/

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil ...


sr
 
Last edited:

GeneZ

Active member
While this is an interesting thought, it comes without any scriptural backing. The object in the verse is Adam, not the various bits of Adam. As I read the passage, it says we shall slowly die, and than be dead. The consequence isn't that we shall live long healthy lives and then die at full vitality and then we suddenly die. The consequence is we die slowly with vitality slipping away until we are dead.
Just caught that you are a Christadelphelian.....


Claiming to base their beliefs solely on the Bible, Christadelphians differ from mainstream Christianity in a number of doctrinal areas.
For example, they reject the Trinity and the immortality of the soul, believing these to be corruptions of original Christian teaching. "


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christadelphians

I have no common ground to be able to discuss with you.
 

John t

Active member
There are other scriptures in gen that directly support the notion of the tree being good evil or good-evil.

YOU TOTALLY MISS THE POINT!

The issue is what the original language says in the verse under discussion

Why is it that you and your "Christadlphian Comrades" cannot comprehend that?
Do you think he wrote his texts as an English .... translating the Hebrew?

and got it wrong?

Irrelevant to Genesis.

You are bring up a different context, a different author therefore a different meaning
 

Slyzr

Member
YOU TOTALLY MISS THE POINT!

The issue is what the original language says in the verse under discussion

Why is it that you and your "Christadlphian Comrades" cannot comprehend that?


Irrelevant to Genesis.

You are bring up a different context, a different author therefore a different meaning
post 70 .....

above ..... cut and pasted below.


Tell it to Isaiah ......

Did you think he was reading the texts in greek.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil ...


Do you think he wrote his texts as an English .... translating the Hebrew?

and got it wrong?


Basically you are saying the Prophet Isiah, did not understand the gen text. (see bolded above from you post)

Or maybe not .... but at least address.

sr
 
Last edited:

John t

Active member
Do you think he wrote his texts as an English .... translating the Hebrew?

and got it wrong?


Basically you are saying the Prophet Isiah, did not understand the gen text. (see bolded above from you post)

Or maybe not .... but at least address.
As I stated previously:
  1. Different authors
  2. Different contexts
  3. Different subjects of discussion
THEREFORE it is YOU, not me who is avoiding the text under discussion.
 

e v e

Well-known member
Utter balderdash!

You have absolutely no evidence for that claim. Your statement eviscerates the Bible because it makes appear that there are two different and unrelated planets called Earth.

It also makes the entire Pentateuch (and the rest of Scripture) a fiction since you are essentially calling Moses a liar. You really want to go that far?
It just recognizes that we left eden, and that we experienced a dimensional separation because of sin.
Actually, when properly translated, the prophets show it to be true.
 

John t

Active member
It just recognizes that we left eden, and that we experienced a dimensional separation because of sin.
You are simple making stuff up that has no basis in Scripture. It is simply an ill-conceived fiction.

Actually, when properly translated, the prophets show it to be true.

It is properly translated, I did that in grad school. Despite your level of academic achievement, I can not comprehend how you, a college lecturer would stoop to the level of erroneously pontificating on an area which I am >90% sure that you have not studied sufficiently to make a judgment of its being "translated properly."

That is what the unlearned cultists here do because they express fear at rigorous intellectual pursuits. You are better than that.
 

Slyzr

Member
As I stated previously:
  1. Different authors
  2. Different contexts
  3. Different subjects of discussion
THEREFORE it is YOU, not me who is avoiding the text under discussion.
/

and you continue to say Isiah was not addressing the text in question.

sr
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Active member
Computer issues ....
I see you've made half a dozen posts or so since your computer issues, including elsewhere in this same thread, yet have not returned to directly respond to my critique of your claim about the Hebrew of the pertinent texts. Why is that?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Active member
It can be used either way you choose.. legitimately.
No, you are taking a well-known construction in Hebrew (at least to those of us who know the language) used to intensify verbal action and trying to extract some clever "spiritual" insight from it... there is nothing legitimate about this kind of unrestrained hermeneutic, particularly when it violates the plain sense of the narrative, which is a reference to the man's physical death should he eat fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Did Adam drop dead when he ate?
With the exception of three ambiguous constructions in 2:20; 3:17 and 3:21, this individual is referred to throughout the garden narrative as "the man" (האדם) rather than by the proper name "Adam" (אדם). As to your question, no, the man did not "drop dead" the moment he bit into the fruit or even shortly thereafter. The Hebrew "on the day" (ביום) need not be understood so rigidly, it can function as a compound preposition "when". The garden narrative (2:4b-3:24) stands in supplemental relationship to the creation account of 1:1-2:3 and in 2:4b there is reference to "on the day" that YHWH God made earth and heaven, yet this collective process was spread out over six days according to the earlier account. Returning to the other use of "to die you will die" (מות תמות) in 1 Kgs 2:37, we can interrogate it similarly. Did Shimei "drop dead" the moment he crossed the Kidron Valley on his way out of Jerusalem? Of course not... he continues on his way, journeys all the way to Gath, retrieves his runaway slaves, returns to Jerusalem and is later summoned by Solomon and finally executed by Benaiah on the king's orders (2:39-46). When Shimei left Jerusalem, his death was certain and happened at an indeterminate point in the future. Similarly, when the man ate the fruit he was forbidden to consume, his death was certain and happened at an indeterminate point in the future.

Satan was just as confused...
Satan? There are four agents in the garden narrative: the deity, the man, the woman and the snake. There is no reference whatsoever to a שטן in the text, the musings of later interpreters notwithstanding.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top